Measures 66 and 67: Failing the clear and objective test

The voters' standard for a ballot title isn't too steep: something that's clear, objective and allows for an informed and educated decision on the measure. Oregon law requires a "simple and understandable statement." Unfortunately, the ballot titles for the January tax referrals drafted by a legislative committee meet neither of these standards.

As one of the six legislators appointed to draft the ballot titles, I was one of only two who voted against the final drafts. Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem, and I were also the only two on the committee who voted against the two House bills that are being challenged by Measures 66 and 67. The final committee product is both biased and misleading. Reading the ballot titles for the measures is more like reading a piece of campaign literature than an objective description of the facts.

For example, the description for the result of a "yes" vote is nearly twice as long as the result of a "no" vote. The description also leaves out the fact that the Legislature's tax package includes a brand new tax of up to $100,000 on businesses that do not even make a profit. And the ballot titles are grossly misleading and speculative about the possible affects of the measures if they are to pass or fail.

Oregonians have the right to a clear, concise and unbiased official description of what they are voting on, not campaign rhetoric.

I appreciate that the committee co-chairs were willing to listen to some of the overwhelming input requesting clarification. They made some additions to the explanatory statement and in a round-about way acknowledged that the tax increases are permanent and retroactive. But those inferences are only clear if you read the ballot title with a very discriminating eye. To my disappointment, of the 46 people who testified to the committee either verbally or by written submission, only nine were in favor of the initial tax referral drafts. All nine of those in opposition were representing organizations that would directly benefit by receiving state funds raised by these tax increases.

Perhaps my biggest concerns are the blatantly false statements in the explanatory portion of Measure 67. As a CPA and the only member of the committee with a tax background, I cannot ignore the misleading and incorrect explanations. One states that all other businesses that are not impacted by the proposed tax increase will pay no minimum or profits tax. This is incorrect. All businesses will pay tax on their profits. Secondly, Measure 67 claims that Sole Proprietors will not be impacted. But any Sole Proprietor filing under an assumed business name, or DBA, with the secretary of state will pay double in fees.

The fact that these taxes go into effect starting at the beginning of 2009 and that they continue in perpetuity are important factors in voters' decision, and important in the bill language. To purposefully leave them out or muddy the truth around those facts is disingenuous at best. At worst, it's an intentional attempt to deceive and mislead voters.

If the quality control test for these ballot titles is clarity and ease of understanding, then they most certainly fail.

Decide for yourself. You can read the entire ballot titles here. Chris Telfer, a Republican, represents Bend in the Oregon Senate.